The contribution that I have made on one front in the field has been through work on the theory of motivated information management and related tests of it. That's the theoretical work that I spend a lot of my career working on. In the last few years, maybe seven, I've been increasingly critical of the knowledge production practices in the field. I've gone through a process of being in spaces that have really opened my eyes to the problems with how we go about advancing knowledge in the field is scandalous, because folks have forced us to open our eyes there. And I've become increasingly dissatisfied with that process. I think the challenges and opportunities ahead of us - and they're both intellectual, and societal - are to dramatically expand the reach of our research and pedagogy. We know a lot about approximately 2% of the world's population. We know a ton about US-centered college students, because our structures make it so that that's what we're encouraged to do, to get quick samples, and to publish a lot based on that. Going into the field, going into communities, taking seriously the role of working with communities, going outside of the university in which we work to access samples, takes a lot of time, a lot of effort. And some cases, a lot of funding - none of which is baked into the ways in which we're viewed for promotion and tenure. So we continue and historically have continued that model. That's what our students learn and etc, etc. So we know a ton about a tiny, tiny percent of the world's population. And that's, frankly, unacceptable. I built my career on that. So I'm certainly not above criticism, I've been a big part of that. That’s how I for a very long time taught my graduate classes and my undergraduate classes because that's what I was used to. But increasingly as we think about what good science is, sample representativeness is a critical component we're taught of good science. Yet, we also very quickly learn in grad school, but that's not anything that we pay attention to. So we learned about how you can only generalize to the characteristics of the sample, but then we see everything that's published that generalizes far beyond that, talks about message or human behaviors this way. This is how we communicate. Maybe in the discussion section, we tested in other communities, and that's about the extent of it. That's a pretty bad way of doing science, if you really take it seriously the notions of what it means to do good science and the role of sample representatives they're in. So I think we need to do a lot better at taking that seriously, and making changes structurally with our journals, with our editors, with our reviewers, with our promotion and tenure documents, with the syllabi and our classes, etc, etc. To be honest with ourselves that what we know is actually very little. Some of it may apply broadly, but we have frankly, no idea. So much of it - I can just speak at least in the interpersonal communication area - centered on an individualistic, westernized notion of what it means to relate, what identity means. When we do communicate, when we do avoid under what conditions and why, what's appropriate, what's face saving, what's not basic, all these things are really been centered in a really westernized, individualistic notion of what that is. And, frankly, it’s likely to not apply at all in more collectivistic communities. I've been doing some research on looking at some indigenous frameworks to talk about the critical aspect of connectedness across various communities as being a relational identity, being the center of well-being, and how connectedness is across various communities and with the environment is essential to relational identity, which then shapes everything else communicatively. What would it look like to ask questions that are centered around that notion of relating, for example? We don't know. Why is it that communication about race - happens in minoritized families all the time? So there's literature outside of communication, and now, thankfully, being added to communication, but very late. About how specifically, African American families and families of color talk to their kids to elevate their identity so that they can have a buffer against the racism they're going to experience. Why has that not been part of our field for decades? Well, one answer I would argue, is because so many folks in our fields have not experienced that in their lives, and they don't even think about asking that question. So if we are to diversify seriously, the field, not only in terms of knowledge produced, but the actors in the fields. It'll open our eyes to a far greater set of experiences and communication challenges that people face.